Consensus Call Tranche 8 Results

YAO Jiankang yaojk at cnnic.cn
Wed Nov 5 11:54:17 CET 2008


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon Josefsson" <simon at josefsson.org>
To: "YAO Jiankang" <yaojk at cnnic.cn>
Cc: "Jaap Akkerhuis" <jaap at NLnetLabs.nl>; <idna-update at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Consensus Call Tranche 8 Results


> "YAO Jiankang" <yaojk at cnnic.cn> writes:
> 
>>> Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap at NLnetLabs.nl> writes:
>>> 
>>>>     If there is no compelling analysis to support another approach,
>>>>     I would actually support changing the prefix.  There are some
>>>>     advantages in changing the prefix: it becomes clear which version
>>>>     of the IDNA specifications were used by the encoder.  That
>>>>     information is lost when the same prefix is used by both IDNA2003
>>>>     and IDNA2008.
>>>>
>>>> That is not changing the prefix, it is adding one. That way one
>>>> creates another namespace with a big overlap to an existing one.
>>>> Aren't we confused enough already?
>>> 
>>> Well, if there are alternatives that are better, I'm for them.  Mark's
>>> proposal to send two DNS queries for the incompatible characters such as
>>> ezset might work, 
>>
>> do you think that sending two DNS queries for the incompatible characters can work?
>> if so, we must update all DNS resolver to support this idea? do you think that it is practicable?
> 
> Do you have a better proposal?

I have no better proposal. so it is better to still keep to use the current prefix. do not change it!



> 
> /Simon
>


More information about the Idna-update mailing list